Werewolf LXXII: Now There's the Truth of It! (Game Thread)

[Pitchwife]

Originally Posted by satansaloser2005

It means the moddess is silly and likes to start at 0 rather than 1, that's all. ToDay is Day 1.

I'm disappointed.
In fact, this game has been unnervingly sane up to now. You do realize you've got a reputation to live up to, don't you?

Speaking of sanity...

Originally Posted by Eönwë

On the other hand, this new way of playing means that there will be less of a difference between the way that ordos and wolves post, because everyone will be thinking the way a wolf does, and so will try to get the confidence of the village as much as possible. It also means that people will be less likely to do crazy posts that leave everyone confused, because less people will be likely to vote for that sort of person past Day 1. In other words, being confusing and unhelpful is probably much more risky in this game, meaning that ordos will act more like wolves try to, and the wolves will probably try harder to look useful.

So maybe we should actually vote for the crazy and confusing people?

[wilwarin538]

Here and reading....

[wilwarin538]

Ok, so the Night posters totally mixed me up yesterday when I saw people posting, cause I had it written in my day planner that yesterday was a Night phase (yes, I keep track of WW stuff in my dayplanner ). I was going to post until I saw that Lottie pointed out that it was still Night time. My point? That I don't find Mira, Eonwe and Nerwen's actions suspicious because I was quite close to doing the same thing. They probably saw someone had posted and just thought it was ok. Form, I really don't think would do someone like that as a wolf just to make himself look good, that just doesn't seem plausible to me. So basically I'm not really focusing on that whole situation from this point on.

I agree with the submarine thing, someone could very well be innocent but if they don't stand out in anyone's mind then they won't get votes, and then they're done for. So talk people! We could very easily lynch someone who we don't necessarily find suspicious but we just haven't noticed, and that's kinda scary. So we really have to go into this a bit differently then usual. We usually focus on who we find suspicious, but now we have to focus on who we all like. It's so backwards and consusing, I just love it!

Gotta run for a bit, but I'll be back soon!

x'ed with inzil

[Isabellkya]

I don't think that the people whom posted during the Night is that huuge of a deal, and will lead to some divine revelation of wolfship.

It looks like it was a general mistaken error, and I agree with those whom have said - I doubt someone would knowingly post during the Night, just to make themselves look better.


Would it be skirting and or bending the rules, if we had a bigway tie for toDay, and thus no one would go to the noose?

[Nogrod]

Originally Posted by Isabellkya

Would it be skirting and or bending the rules, if we had a bigway tie for toDay, and thus no one would go to the noose?

The wolves love every lynch where no one dies as that leaves the decision over who dies to them.

Every lynch that doesn't happen means zero wolves killed. Every Night-kill (succesful or not) means zero wolves killed.

We can err of course and oftentimes we do, but lynching is our only weapon against the wolves (except hunters, but they're for kind of "one time use" only ).

[Nienna]

I think Nog has an interesting idea. I don't know as it has to be something as [not] "official" as bolding or using -- but it is definitely a good idea for people to bring up who they think should be lynched and why so that we aren't just all scrambling and so that we have a sense of purpose.

In some respects it might be a touch easier as I usually find myself thinking that a few people seem innocent but I can't put my finger on one specific person who looks guilty... at least in the beginning stages. But we'll see.


Edit: Crossed with Steve

[Eönwë]

[Seem to have clicked submit too soon. So, as I was saying:]

If we do have a system of showing who we want to lynch, it draws attention away from those in who aren't in the list and who have only received a few votes of confidence. It means that these people may be able to last for quite a few days with only a few votes and remain undetected. Of course, we'll still have the same problem now, but now no-one who isn't voted is safe and have to work to gain the village's confidence, but if we do the lynch-thing, people that aren't on there will be "safe" and will probably not be looked at as much as those under suspicion.

I think this game should be a chance to try the "you get what you work for" attitude, at least for the first Day. It'll be interesting to see how the capitalist ideology fits in with WW.

[Shastanis Althreduin]

Originally Posted by Isabellkya

I don't think that the people whom posted during the Night is that huuge of a deal, and will lead to some divine revelation of wolfship.

It looks like it was a general mistaken error, and I agree with those whom have said - I doubt someone would knowingly post during the Night, just to make themselves look better.


Would it be skirting and or bending the rules, if we had a bigway tie for toDay, and thus no one would go to the noose?

But that would make Shasta sad. You don't want to make Shasta sad, do you?

[satansaloser2005]

Originally Posted by Pitchwife

I'm disappointed.
In fact, this game has been unnervingly sane up to now. You do realize you've got a reputation to live up to, don't you?

Speaking of sanity...

So maybe we should actually vote for the crazy and confusing people?

Tell me how I could top my last game and I'll do it. Until then, hush. Nyah.

Originally Posted by Isabellkya

I don't think that the people whom posted during the Night is that huuge of a deal, and will lead to some divine revelation of wolfship.

It looks like it was a general mistaken error, and I agree with those whom have said - I doubt someone would knowingly post during the Night, just to make themselves look better.


Would it be skirting and or bending the rules, if we had a bigway tie for toDay, and thus no one would go to the noose?

It'd be perfectly legal, but I'd be very cross with you if you did it on purpose.

Originally Posted by Shastanis Althreduin

But that would make Shasta sad. You don't want to make Shasta sad, do you?

What he said.

[Nogrod]

Originally Posted by wilwarin538

I agree with the submarine thing, someone could very well be innocent but if they don't stand out in anyone's mind then they won't get votes, and then they're done for.

And that's the ingenuinity of this game! If this works (remains to be seen), I'll be suggesting we make this kind of games more often as now it seems that one really needs to post to stay on with the game.


But just an idea then.

Now Sally seemed to request we highlight our votes of confidence.

So how about we come up with a marking of our own to indicate whom everyone of us would like to lynch? I think it would be a good idea if everyone also told the others whom they would like to see lynched already on this Day - and hopefully also why. In that way we could lessen the erratic nature of the last hour choices a little bit more?

Especially if we have people who can only turn out at the last moments of the Day they would have it easier just scrolling the thread and see why some people would like to see some others lynched (if people write long posts and their points are just in the middle of them unmarked a fast skimmer might just miss them).

If someone doesn't get that highlight-rule they might go for the traditional bolding with two pluses, so we should have to come up with some other solution for our unofficial lynch-votes.

How about we marked them like this?

Originally Posted by being an example

-- Nogrod

or

lynch Nogrod

Both would be clear, visible and still no one could mess it up with a vote of confidence (with two pluses & highlighting)?

What do you think?

[Eönwë]

Originally Posted by Nogrod

So how about we come up with a marking of our own to indicate whom everyone of us would like to lynch? I think it would be a good idea if everyone also told the others whom they would like to see lynched already on this Day - and hopefully also why. In that way we could lessen the erratic nature of the last hour choices a little bit more?

That is quite a good idea, and would be quite practical, but it does seem to go against the whole spirit of this game, because it makes us look at who we want to kill rather than who we want to save, which is the point of this game. Also, it might make some things clearer, but it will also make the mayhem near DL even more chaotic than it would be in this game.

I also think that if we focus on those two sides, then we'll totally forget about the people in the middle, who, if any are wolves, will have a chance to sneak by with one or two votes. If we just focus on those we want to save, it means that those we're not saving need to work harder. If we do decide who we want to lynch it will make the middle people slightly safer.

[Nogrod]

I was just thinking very highly of you Eönwë but then you posted again and I'm not so sure anymore...

Originally Posted by Eönwë

That is quite a good idea, and would be quite practical, but it does seem to go against the whole spirit of this game, because it makes us look at who we want to kill rather than who we want to save, which is the point of this game.

I just don't see the point of this objection. It looks like you'd wish us not to talk of whom we actually suspect so as to let the wolves skip freely in the shadows? It's the point of the game-mechanics that we vote for confidence, but our goal nevertheless is getting the wolves lynched. Or do you have a different goal?

Also, it might make some things clearer, but it will also make the mayhem near DL even more chaotic than it would be in this game.

How would that be?

I also think that if we focus on those two sides, then we'll totally forget about the people in the middle, who, if any are wolves, will have a chance to sneak by with one or two votes. If we just focus on those we want to save, it means that those we're not saving need to work harder. If we do decide who we want to lynch it will make the middle people slightly safer.

Do you focus on everyone with the same effort everyDay in a normal ww-game? So no one manages to sneak from your view, no "middle-people" ever have it safer in normal games? And does that mean you have "totally forgotten" them in a normal game?

I smell more rhetorics than substance here Eönwë. And that makes me suspicious.

Originally Posted by Gwath

It also occurs to me, on another note, that it will be much easier for the wolves to get someone lynched during the day without attracting attention, and much, much harder to assign blame for a player's lynch to any one or two other players. All the wolves have to do is ignore the intended victim. So - time to reassess how we analyze votes.

That's an important point as well. The reading of the votes is a case to be pondered toMorrow, but the fact that the wolves can actually get people lynched in much easier way this time around as they don't have to actually push for the lynching of anyone. They can just ignore people they are okay being lynched.

That's scary. And that's why we need suspicions, even quasi-votes for lynching.

[satansaloser2005]

Originally Posted by Pitchwife

You're quite right, sorry. Damn consumer mentality getting the better of me...

Heh. Heart you too dear, heart you too.



This is boring. I wonder if I should just give someone five points and let you discuss why I did it. Hmmmm....


(Not that I'd actually do it, as I'm leaving soon anyway, but it'd certainly amuse me.)

[Eönwë]

Originally Posted by Nogrod

I just don't see the point of this objection. It looks like you'd wish us not to talk of whom we actually suspect so as to let the wolves skip freely in the shadows? It's the point of the game-mechanics that we vote for confidence, but our goal nevertheless is getting the wolves lynched. Or do you have a different goal?

I didn't say don't talk about suspects. Just think about the other side too. That is the point of this game- we don't want it to end up just like any other. Of course, without suspicions you also can't have people that you trust more than those you find suspicious, but "quasi-votes for lynching" (as you call them) on Day 1?

Originally Posted by Nogrod

How would that be?

It's hard enough trying to work out who's ahead on the vote count normally, but in this system it will be many times harder. If quasi-lynch-votes are cast in the last hour it would be quite crazy.

Originally Posted by Nogrod

Do you focus on everyone with the same effort everyDay in a normal ww-game? So no one manages to sneak from your view, no "middle-people" ever have it safer in normal games? And does that mean you have "totally forgotten" them in a normal game?

No, but that's what's special about this game. It makes us put people into the "trust" and "don't trust" categories. We have to focus on what everyone says, and everyone has to speak, because if they don't they are likely to die. If we then have a "want-to-lynch", then it leaves us with a "don't-trust-but-don't-want-to-lynch" category, which is probably the safest place for the wolves to hide. If we don't have one, it gives them less self-confidence if they are on it, and will probably feel like they have to prove themselves.

Originally Posted by Nogrod

And that's why we need suspicions, even quasi-votes for lynching.

Of course we need suspicions. But on Day 1, where there is little chance of making an informed decision anyway, I think we should at least give the current system a try before we start making amendments. Firstly, what sort of arguments can we come up with to lynch someone on Day 1 anyway? Secondly, tomorrow we will be able to see the problems that occurred to today and then improve upon them- we've never even tried this.

Also, I think this game makes an easier Day 1 than normal. Usually, you have to try to come up with some (usually very unsubstantiated) argument about why you want to lynch someone, while here you only have to decide about the people you trust more or "feel good about".

edit: x-ed since last post.

[Gwathagor]

Originally Posted by Nogrod

And that's the ingenuinity of this game! If this works (remains to be seen), I'll be suggesting we make this kind of games more often as now it seems that one really needs to post to stay on with the game.

Blast. There goes my usual strategy of saying as little as possible. It will be interesting to see how this affects folks' playing styles, since it behooves us all, to some extent, to TRY to attract attention. Even though I know meta-game reasoning is a bad idea, I'm going to be tempted to compare how players are playing in this game with their ordinary playing styles.

It also occurs to me, on another note, that it will be much easier for the wolves to get someone lynched during the day without attracting attention, and much, much harder to assign blame for a player's lynch to any one or two other players. All the wolves have to do is ignore the intended victim. So - time to reassess how we analyze votes. Who are people trying to keep around? Who are they not mentioning in their posts? Et cetera.

EDIT: Crossed since post #58.

[Pitchwife]

Originally Posted by the late Gwathagor

It also occurs to me, on another note, that it will be much easier for the wolves to get someone lynched during the day without attracting attention, and much, much harder to assign blame for a player's lynch to any one or two other players. All the wolves have to do is ignore the intended victim. So - time to reassess how we analyze votes. Who are people trying to keep around? Who are they not mentioning in their posts? Et cetera.

A very good point, I think, and one that bears some thinking about. What would be the consequences of this game's dynamics for wolvish voting behaviour? Would they actively vote to keep their packmates around? Not as long as none of them is in serious danger of getting lynched, of course, but otherwise? Also, is wolf-on-wolf more or less likely in this game, or would there be no difference? Thoughts, anybody?

[Nerwen]

Originally Posted by Pitchwife

I don't quite get where all this wave of trust in Nog comes from. As Nerwen just said concerning Form, it's not like our deceased innocents knew anything, they could have been just as mistaken as everybody else.

Lottie's suggestion at #213

Originally Posted by Lottie

You'd almost think she was a seer and dreamed him...maybe that's why the wolves killed her, thinking she *was* the seer.

is more logical. Still highly speculative though– they could have killed Nienna for a completely different reason. After all, she was a good player who also wasn't likely to be Ranger–protected.

Originally Posted by Pitchwife

And I don't at all like the way he acts like he knows what is best for us all and everybody who dares to disagree is working against the common good, hence wolvish.

*shrugs* Nogrod does that whatever he is, Pitch. Had you really not noticed before?

Originally Posted by Pitchwife

A very good point, I think, and one that bears some thinking about. What would be the consequences of this game's dynamics for wolvish voting behaviour? Would they actively vote to keep their packmates around? Not as long as none of them is in serious danger of getting lynched, of course, but otherwise? Also, is wolf-on-wolf more or less likely in this game, or would there be no difference? Thoughts, anybody?

What does wolf-on-wolf even mean in this game? If it's just stating suspicions, then I think it's more likely, because it doesn't cost the wolves quite as much as if they were expected to back said suspicions up with a lynch-vote. (Still might result in getting a packmate lynched by default, though).

[Eönwë]

OK, before I do anything else:

Originally Posted by Loslote

#54: Doesn't really commit to Pitchie's suggestion to kill crazy and confusing people;

Firstly, as Pitch has already said, it's the other way around. Also, I don't think any of our two posts were meant totally seriously. Next you'll suggest that Pitchwife was going to create a craziness scale and vote (wait, no, lynch ) people higher up.

#60, #65, #69, #72, #77,#82, and #85 are all debating with Nog about suspecting vs. trusting. I don't know about anyone else, but I found that annoying to read through the first time (when I thought dl was fast approaching and was trying to get caught up) and extremely suspicious the next few times. Steve explains his earlier posts; qualifies his earlier posts; and flip-flops a lot, all the while arguing with Nog.
Firstly, the last of those posts was made when there were three hours until the planned DL. Three hours! If you miscalculated the time then you shouldn't attack me just because you were in a bad mood. Anyway, all I was saying in all of those posts is that in this game we're given a new weapon against the wolves. Why waste it and try to turn this into a normal game when
(a) We haven't yet explored this new style of voting; and
(b) We can't turn this into a normal game anyway because we're voting for the opposite thing?

That's not to say that no-one should post their suspicions (as I have said countless times before now). That's what a large proportion of posts are anyway. That's what needs to be done in order to do anything in this game. It's just that I don't think these fake votes are necessary.

And then everyone assumes that I'm trying to stifle people's opinions?

And since when did Nogrod become He Who Only Speaks The Truth? It seems that everyone has just blindly followed him, because he suggested that we should mention who we find suspicious, which is what we do anyway.

However, I will say this- Yesterday there were quite a few people who didn't mention who they thought was suspicious and in this way maybe Nogrod had the right idea. It was just that I thought a fake vote was going too far.

Originally Posted by Loslote

He suspects Nienna because she "seems to be agreeing lot rather than making any new points." <-*coughdidyoureadherpostsatallcough*.

Have you? A lot of her posts are just agreeing with people. Look at this. #51 is a good point, but #61 is just the obvious (which I'll admit I did neglect to mention in my post just before). Then she comes in with a post count which isn't really that useful. The she does make quite good point in the next post (#90), but I don't think I read that at the time (and she basically just continuing along #51's line of thought anyway). The rest of her posts were after my list.

Originally Posted by Loslote

He says that Pitchie looks "innocent who just overdid it a bit on the non-"Nog-quasi-voting" front." <- HE overdid it?

Ok, I admit it, not only was I hypocritical there, but wrong. Happy now?

Originally Posted by Loslote

And finally, in #190: votes Izzy "because Gwath seems more suspicious."

Well, if you look at my list, Izzy was on the innocent side. On my vote post, I seem to have said "x-ed with Fea" rather than "since Fea". Seeing that Pitch (who I thought more innocent) had got Fea's vote, I wanted to save Izzy too, as it didn't seem like anyone would be voting Gwath (on my suspicious list, by the way). Anything wrong with that?



Now to actually start the Day...

[Pitchwife]

Originally Posted by Nogrod

So how about we come up with a marking of our own to indicate whom everyone of us would like to lynch?

What's the point of first applauding the ingenuity of this game, then suggesting to introduce a classical lynch vote through the back door? Who gets no vote is lynched, period. No need for any extra votes or markings (unless you want to confuse poor alona, who's suffered quite enough recently by having her heart eaten and all that).

Going with the point Eönwë made about modified wolvish behaviour in #48, I must say most of you are acting much too reasonable and eager to help for my peace of mind right now (not that I'm a shiny exception myself, I suppose). Obviously you can't all be wolves, but at the moment I'm tempted to vote for one or two of the quieter and weirder people, just in case.